February 15, 2008

Solutions: Addendum

by hilzoy

This is just a follow-up post to publius' last. I have been trying, off and on, to compare Clinton and Obama's legislative records. Various people have compared their voting records -- see, for instance, here -- but it occurred to me that it would be interesting to see not just how they voted, but what legislation they had actually gotten passed, as a guide both to their priorities and to their effectiveness. When I started, I had no idea what I'd find; I did this partly to find new facts and thus minimize the chances that I was being biassed.

I haven't finished this yet: a serious examination of this question requires looking not just at the legislation each of them sponsored, but at the legislation they co-sponsored. Thus, for instance, I know that Obama had a big role in the legislation known as "Lugar/Obama", which was sponsored by Richard Lugar, and in a whole raft of ethics bills, many of which were sponsored either by Harry Reid or by Russ Feingold. I imagine the same is true of Clinton. But it's tricky trying to figure out which bills they co-sponsored because they actually worked on them, and which they co-sponsored just because they thought the bill was a good one. I haven't finished this yet. (Note: if anyone can think of an easy way to do this, above and beyond reading through the Congressional Record for clues, please let me know.)

However, I present for your delectation and edification (and uglification and distraction!) a list of all the bills sponsored by either candidate that actually became law. (I omitted resolutions.) Short version: neither has passed anything this Congress, which seems to be because bills take a while to wend their way through committee. In the 109th Congress, Clinton's bills were all pretty insubstantial; Obama had one substantial bill, on the Congo. In the 107th and 108th Congresses, Obama wasn't there, so comparisons are not possible; nonetheless, Clinton's legislation seems pretty thin to me.

I also added a list of all the amendments each has passed in the 109th and 110th Congresses that meet certain criteria that I spell out below (designed to eliminate things that are easy to pass and thus require little skill, and also to minimize my typing.) Why the 109th and 110th? Because they are the two Congresses for which direct comparisons between Clinton and Obama are possible, and at a certain point I decided not to bother with the earlier ones.

To reiterate a point I made above: this list omits everything they have co-sponsored. This means that it is not a list of every piece of legislation they have written and gotten passed: Senators can play very important roles in writing legislation they merely co-sponsor. It's just a starting point, but not, I hope, entirely without interest.

Bills Passed:

110th Congress, Clinton: no bills; Obama: no bills.

109th Congress, Clinton:

S.2376 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 80 Killian Road in Massapequa, New York, as the "Gerard A. Fiorenza Post Office Building". For further action, see H.R.3934, which became Public Law 109-255 on 8/1/2006.

S.2722 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 170 East Main Street in Patchogue, New York, as the "Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy Post Office Building". Note: For further action, see H.R.4101, which became Public Law 109-256 on 8/1/2006.

S.3613 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2951 New York Highway 43 in Averill Park, New York, as the "Major George Quamo Post Office Building". Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-311

S.3910 : A bill to direct the Joint Committee on the Library to accept the donation of a bust depicting Sojourner Truth and to display the bust in a suitable location in the Capitol. Note: For further action, see H.R.4510, which became Public Law 109-427 on 12/20/2006.

109th Congress, Obama:

S.2125 : A bill to promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 12/16/2005) Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-456

S.3757 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 950 Missouri Avenue in East St. Louis, Illinois, as the "Katherine Dunham Post Office Building". Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 7/27/2006) Note: For further action, see H.R.5929, which became Public Law 109-333 on 10/12/2006.

108th Congress, Clinton:

S.1241 : A bill to establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site in the State of New York, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 6/11/2003) Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 108-438

S.1266 : A bill to award a congressional gold medal to Dr. Dorothy Height, in recognition of her many contributions to the Nation. Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 6/13/2003) Note: For further action, see H.R. 1821, which became Public Law 108-162 on 12/6/2003.

S.1425 : A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize the New York City Watershed Protection Program. Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 7/17/2003) Note: For further action, see H.R.2771, which became Public Law 108-328 on 10/16/2004.

S.2838 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 10 West Prospect Street in Nanuet, New York, as the "Anthony I. Lombardi Memorial Post Office Building". Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 9/23/2004) Note: For further action, see H.R.4618, which became Public Law 108-397 on 10/30/2004.

S.2839 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 555 West 180th Street in New York, New York, as the "Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda Post Office". Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 9/23/2004) Note: For further action, see H.R.4046, which became Public Law 108-388 on 10/30/2004.

107th Congress, Clinton:

S.584 : A bill to designate the United States courthouse located at 40 Centre Street in New York, New York, as the "Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse". Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 3/21/2001) Note: For further action, see H.R. 988, which became Public Law 107-33 on 8/20/2001.

S.1622 : A bill to extend the period of availability of unemployment assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act in the case of victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 11/1/2001) Note: For further action, see H.R. 3986, which became Public Law 107-154 on 3/25/2002.

S.1892 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 375 Carlls Path in Deer Park, New York, as the "Raymond M. Downey Post Office Building". Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 1/23/2002) Note: For further action, see H.R. 3379, which became Public Law 107-167 on 4/18/2002.

S.2496 : A bill to provide for the establishment of investigative teams to assess building performance and emergency response and evacuation procedures in the wake of any building failure that has resulted in substantial loss of life or that posed significant potential of substantial loss of life, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 5/9/2002) Note: For further action, see H.R. 4687, which became Public Law 107-231 on 10/1/2002.

S.2918 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 380 Main Street in Farmingdale, New York, as the "Peter J. Ganci, Jr. Post Office Building". Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 9/10/2002) Note: For further action, see H.R. 5336, which became Public Law 107-285 on 11/6/2002.

***

Just for the heck of it, here is another list: amendments sponsored by Clinton and Obama that became law, excluding the following: (a) amendments that simply state policy, or that merely require a report; (b) amendments that do something trivial like instructing the mint to strike a coin; (c) amendments of purely local interest, taking (for Clinton) legislation having to do with 9/11 and New York City to be of more than local interest; (d) amendments that appropriate less than $50 million and do nothing else that doesn't fall under a-c above. (The idea being: things in all those categories are pretty easy to get through, and not a sign of much skill. Plus, they take a while to type in.)

S.AMDT.2917 to H.R.1585 To extend and enhance the authority for temporary lodging expenses for members of the Armed Forces in areas subject to a major disaster declaration or for installations experiencing a sudden increase in personnel levels. Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 9/19/2007) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 9/25/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2917 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

110th Congress, Obama: (8 amendments)

S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 1/11/2007) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 1/18/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 41 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.524 to S.CON.RES.21 To provide $100 million for the Summer Term Education Program supporting summer learning opportunities for low-income students in the early grades to lessen summer learning losses that contribute to the achievement gaps separating low-income students from their middle-class peers. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 3/21/2007) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 3/23/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 524 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.905 to S.761 To require the Director of Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Education to establish a program to recruit and provide mentors for women and underrepresented minorities who are interested in careers in mathematics, science, and engineering. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 4/23/2007) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 4/25/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 905 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.2519 to H.R.2638 To provide that one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5 million or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee owes no past due Federal tax liability. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 7/26/2007) Cosponsors (3) Latest Major Action: 7/26/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2519 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.2588 to H.R.976 To provide certain employment protections for family members who are caring for members of the Armed Forces recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred on active duty. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 7/31/2007) Cosponsors (8) Latest Major Action: 8/2/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2588 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.2313 to H.R.3010 To provide for payments to the New York State Uninsured Employers Fund for reimbursement of claims related to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and payments to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for treatment for emergency services personnel and rescue and recovery personnel. Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 10/26/2005) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 10/27/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2313 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.

S.AMDT.4264 to S.2766 To enhance the services available to members of the Armed Forces returning from deployment in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom to assist such members, and their family members, in transitioning to civilian life. Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 6/15/2006) Cosponsors (2) Latest Major Action: 6/22/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4264 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.1061 to H.R.2361 To provide that none of the funds made available in this Act may be used in contravention of 15 U.S.C. section 2682(c)(3) or to delay the implementation of that section. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 6/27/2005) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 6/28/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1061 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent. (Note: 15 U.S.C. section 2682(c)(3) deals with the certification and training of people who do lead paint removal, and requiring that properly trained and certified people do lead paint removal.)

S.AMDT.1453 to S.1042 To ensure the protection of military and civilian personnel in the Department of Defense from an influenza pandemic, including an avian influenza pandemic. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 7/25/2005) Cosponsors (2) Latest Major Action: 11/8/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1453 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.3810 to H.R.4939 To provide that none of the funds appropriated by this Act may be made available for hurricane relief and recovery contracts exceeding $500,000 that are awarded using procedures other than competitive procedures. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 5/1/2006) Cosponsors (4) Latest Major Action: 5/2/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3810 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 98 - 0. Record Vote Number: 106.

S.AMDT.4224 to S.2766 To include assessments of Traumatic Brain Injury in the post-deployment health assessments of member of the Armed Forces returning from deployment in support of a contingency operation. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 6/14/2006) Cosponsors (6) Latest Major Action: 6/22/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4224 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.4624 to H.R.5441 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available for expenses in carrying out the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act may be used to enter into noncompetitive contracts based upon the unusual and compelling urgency exception under Federal contracting law unless the contract is limited in time, scope, and value as necessary to respond to the immediate emergency. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 7/12/2006) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 7/13/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4624 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.4972 to H.R.4954 To ensure the evacuation of individuals with special needs in times of emergency. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 9/13/2006) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 9/13/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4972 as modified agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.

Comments

If you're looking in order to assess what's really important to the candidates, you might check into any bills sponsored by Obama in Illinois. (Unless you have some reason that these would not reflect his priorities.)

S.2722 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 170 East Main Street in Patchogue, New York, as the "Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy Post Office Building". Note: For further action, see H.R.4101, which became Public Law 109-256 on 8/1/2006.

We owe Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy, USN a lot more than a post office. We owe his successors in interest a withdrawal or a functional set of Rules of Engagement.

“When they find the bodies, the Taliban leaders will sing to the Afghan media. The media in the U.S.A. will latch on to it and write stuff about the brutish U.S. Armed Forces. Very shortly after that, we’ll be charged with murder. The murder of unarmed Afghan farmers.”
-Lieutenant Michael Murphy, USN, now dead

My basic take on what the amendments show: Obama's show a legislator concerned about race and gender equality, improving education opportunities for low income students, ethical and transparent government and competitive bidding on government contracts, whereas Clinton's shows she really, really supports the troops.

Neither of them have done anything positive of much significance in the Senate. With a Republican President and either a Republican majority or razor thin Democratic majority in the Senate, there simply wasn't much opportunity for major legislation on their part anyway.

On the other hand, Obama did do some significant work in the Illinois Senate on health care and criminal justice while the other 27 years of Clinton's experience -- especially her role in health care reform in '93-'94 -- don't show anything that supports her claims to be a master of getting substantive, controversial bills passed.

Sorry, and I know you put in a lot of work on this, but this is essentially meaningless. Any piece of significant legislation must be introduced with co-sponsors, preferably many and bi-partisan, if it has any hope of passage. So by eliminating all bills they co-sponsored basically eliminated any value this might have had. The trick is to try and determine which bills they co-sponsored and took a leading role in moving through the legislative process. A very difficult thing to do but unless you can solve this riddle we won't be able to use legislative records to assess each candidate.

DMH, she wasn't eliminating bills that had co-sponsors, but (because of the difficulty you mention) including only bills for which Obama or Clinton was the initial sponsor, as opposed to a co-sponsor. Some of these bills may very well have had "many and bi-partisan" co-sponsors. I think "meaningless" is far too strong a word to use there.

S.AMDT.4582 to H.R.5441 To prohibit the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration) from removing any item from the current list of items prohibited from being carried aboard a passenger aircraft. Sponsor: Sen Clinton

Jackmormon, I found what she said after introducing it (no link because I can't figure out a way to get permanent links for the Congressional Record -- stupid Thomas!):

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, this is an amendment which addresses the concerns raised by the Transportation Security Administration lifting the prohibition of passengers carrying onto our passenger aircraft sharp objects, including knives.

There is a considerable debate, led by the airline attendants and pilots, as to the wisdom of this rule being lifted. I ask the Senate to consider whether this is a good idea. We have been so successful in nearly 5 years in avoiding incidents on our airlines, in keeping our people safe on our airlines. If it ain't broke, why fix it?

This rule has worked. People are used to the rule. My goodness, we have had security people take steak knives out of people's handbags and suitcases. We have had them take out huge pen knives and switchblades. Why do we want to go back to that?

Martin: yes, that's how I generated this list. This was the easy part; the hard part is figuring out which of the bills and amendments they co-sponsored (but that were sponsored by others) they played a significant role in.

Brock: I hope to post on it again when I've gotten a better grasp of the co-sponsored legislation, but life, my actual job, etc., periodically intervene.

Also: I think Obama's record also shows he's concerned about vets. (See e.g. the amendment requiring screening of returning soldiers for TBI, and the one about homeless vets.) There is also a fair amount about Katrina.

But surely the TSA wouldn't lift the prohibition on knives! Why would anyone lift the prohibition on knives? What I'm hoping that amendment doesn't enact is the ever-multiplying list of prohibitions that we seem to live with today.

Curt, it's not there because Coburn is the sponsor in Thomas, and as Hilzoy said, there's no easy way to distinguish between co-sponsors who were involved in creating the legislation and those who signed on later (though people who were heavily involved will presumably be among those whose co-sponsor date is the same as the day the bill was introduced).

Hilzoy, I'm afraid there aren't a whole lot of shortcuts, but here's one: Thomas includes the date on which members became cosponsors. Original cosponsors are those signed on the day the bill is introduced. Anyone who's done significant work on the bill will be in that list, not signed on later. As dmb points out, though, that's a necessary but not sufficient condition of being a significant bill-developer.

Another indicator requires tedious review of the Congressional Record: the floor managers and main speakers during debate on initial stages of the bill usually include those who were involved in its development (and/or acknowledgement on the part of those who do speak).

Nell: yeah, that's the one thing I have figured out: limiting myself to bills where Obama/Clinton were original co-sponsors (turns out it's even better to see who is included as a cosponsor in the Congressional Record, since that cuts out people who signed on later the same day.) I have been reading the CR to see who is mentioned by the sponsor, but, alas, that doesn't work for amendments, where people normally don't talk about that stuff. Sometimes, they don't do it even for bills.

I suspect limiting the list to where they *sponsored* the bill is unfair to both. You're not going to see substantive legislation with only one sponsor, and with the Senate being a seniority-obsessed place, I doubt either could make top sponsor on any substantive bills. They're both pretty junior.

I know there's a certain amount of inherent drudgery to life in Congress, but I'm wondering just how much important stuff might get done if the privelege/obligation of naming of landmarks and national holidays was taken away from the US Congress.

Because it's really silly. Before 9/11, it was legal to carry a small pocketknife with a blade 3" or less (IIRC). That's a useful tool and no more useful as a weapon than all sorts of other stuff that's still legal. The prohibition isn't worth the time and hassle of enforcing it or the inconvenience to passengers who forget to purge their pockets before they go to the airport.

Interesting. I browsed through looking at just the current Congress. As pretty much everything is stuck in some committee I couldn’t gauge how effective they were at getting their bills passed so I mainly focused on what they were proposing.

The first thing that struck me was that they both have a fair number (C=150, O=113). The second thing that struck me is that a lot of it is pure fluff from both of them. By fluff I mean resolutions that do nothing more than: “honoring and praising”, “recognizing”, “supporting”, “expressing the sense of the Congress”, “calling for”, “urging”, “congratulating”, “establish an Advisory Committee”, “condemning”, “celebrating”, “designating a date as”, “honoring and recognizing”, “commending”, etc. Probably that is completely normal; I haven’t compared their records to other Senators.

The one criterion I could use to gauge their effectiveness is how many cosponsors they managed to attract. Clinton has more submitted so I decided to look at the average number of cosponsors per bill/resolution/amendment:

C: 4.2
O: 4.17

So that’s a wash.

Then I looked at how many of their bills/resolutions/amendments have no cosponsors at all:

C: 43/150 (3.5)
O: 31/113 (3.6)

So that’s a wash.

Support of the military and veterans is important to me so I did tend to key in on that. (Expand health benefits; improve/monitor VA hospitals, housing assistance for low income vets, etc.)

C: 15
O: 10

I have to give that one to Clinton. Of course that’s just based on the summary. If I got into the meat of each I might find that Obama’s are more substantive.

Finally I decided to weed out all the resolutions and amendments – how many actual bills did each sponsor and how many of those would I personally support:

C: 92/40 (43%)
O: 55/20 (36%)

So that one goes to Clinton as well. No surprise there as Obama is certainly the more liberal of the two.

This is pretty meaningless to anyone else of course as it just reflects my own bias. But based on lunch-time research if it was based strictly on their sponsored bills in this current Congress I’d have to lean towards Clinton.

I did fumble around in there enough to conclude that you’ve set yourself quite a task here hilzoy.

Slart, I admit I was never a regular reader -- only saw things people were pointing at -- so I'm sure I didn't have a random sample of his writing to base my opinion on. Still, I didn't expect this sort of absolute trash. I'm somewhat heartened to see that the MyDD diary hasn't made the recommended list.

For the most part, the box cutter gambit worked because everyone treated it like a run of the mill hijacking (wait around and everyone except maybe one unfortunate person is fine at the end) not because the hijackers had super-effective weapons.

Sebastian is getting at what I wanted to say about letting things onto airplanes. The fact is, 9/11 style hijack-and-crash-into-buildings-attacks were over before the fourth plane hit the ground that day.

I'm travelling next week, and I'm already irritated about the whole 1-1-3 nonsense. Last year I was going through security next to a guy who had a tube of toothpaste in his carryon, and that was his ONLY liquid/gel/etc. It was under 3 ounces. However, it was NOT in a 1 qt baggie, so the TSA lady was going to throw it out. Fortunately, I had an extra bag and gave it to him. This made everything ok. What kind of garbage security is this? The whole liquid restriction is bogus to begin with.

farmgirl - hear hear. And the whole world seems to have adopted this silliness, based on recent travels. In Hong Kong, my wife and I got off our flight from the U.S. where we had purchased a couple of waterbottles before getting on the flight. After getting off the plane in HK we went through another screening, where the bottles were discovered and thrown out. Just dumb.

And we are at a permanent "orange" level of security threat based on what?

Yep. Six years ago, when we traveled from Orlando to Changsha, PRC to get my younger daughter, we went through screening to get out to the terminal area, and then we had to remove our shoes and have them manually inspected, again before we got on the plane.

We hopped to Houston where, never having left the security area, we had to undergo the same kind of inspection before boarding our flight to LAX. Of course, in LAX, we weren't inspected at all, because do we really care if a terrorist hijacks a China Air flight, and rams it into a building?

Vets are one of those funny issues where there is a flawed consensus.
Its easy to say "i am for vets" but any time you create a complex system designed to favour a sector of society you create problems.

Imagine if the government went to new Orleans after the storm and said
"I hear street sweepers work hard - all the street sweepers come up here and get your aid packages - everyone else, too bad."

of course vets could be underpaid or might choose to be paid in terms of 'state insurance' but it should be sorted out in a straightforward way.

And another thing, I haven't been selected for "extra" screening in a while (being a non-descript white male helps, I suppose), but don't they ask you which bags are yours when they do that? "Which bags are mine? Why, the two clean bags my accomplice just passed through the screening machine, not my actual two bags that contain the weapons."

OCSteve: you might be the only one who appreciates what went into installment 2, which I just put up. (As I said, I've been puttering on this for a while, so I didn't do it all today, thought I did go back to make sure no new bills had been passed since I started.)

I think Seb is completely right on this. It is nice to be able to write that.

Ugh,

I've been through the SSSS super duper extra special selectee screening (my driver's license expired on a trip and I neglected to bring my passport with me). I don't remember them asking that. The only difference was that I had to go through the new air puffing machine and they inspected all of my carry on luggage with their spectrometer swabs.

Yes. I was in the screening line and got the point where I had to show my ID and boarding pass to the first TSA agent. She directed me into the care of another TSA agent who lead me to the SSSS line and deposited me there.

After I made it through the air puffing machine (and maybe metal detector as well?), they told me to pick up my bags from the X-ray belt and deposit them at the swabbing station...this was all at IAD which has a bizarre security layout compared to more normal airports.

Heck, they wouldn't have to invent them, just draw a couple of realistic looking diagrams on a piece of paper and make sure they find their way into the hand of the U.S. security apparatus. We'd be placing our pants in a separate container on the scanner within a week and the "threat" level would be at purple.

From there, it's just a short step to the exploding underwear diagrams...

Gary, I'm not sure what LSL is, but from context I assumed Slart was talking about Larry Johnson. From googling I'd guess Ugh is right that it's Leisure Suit Larry (maybe a nickname applied by the "Plame was never covert" crowd).

I apologize for the cryptic reference to the MyDD diary. Somehow I thought I'd mentioned in my previous comment that I'd originally found Larry Johnson's latest Obama smear through a diary he posted on MyDD (a place I'm not really sure why I still visit). When I saw the author was "Larr Johnson" I assumed at first that surely it wasn't that Larry Johnson, since he wasn't a wingnut.

One of my problems with Clinton is that I don't like some of the solutions she's proposing. Take the interest rate freeze and foreclosure moratorium; it's a terrible idea. It's only purpose is to keep people in homes longer, who are likely to be foreclosed on at a later date anyway. The simple fact is, there are a lot of people who simply bought more house than they could afford, and won't be able to pay the amortizing rates at any interest rate. They, as well as the rest of us, will be better off if the foreclosure goes ahead now.

Much better would be to repeal the bankruptcy changes, and come up with programs to help people after they've lost their house to foreclosure. That would serve a useful purpose, and actually help people.

"Gary, I'm not sure what LSL is, but from context I assumed Slart was talking about Larry Johnson."

Ok. Thanks. I couldn't figure out how "LSL" could map to "Larry Johnson," so was baffled.

Actually, I still don't have a clue how "Leisure Suit Larry," a series of computer games I'm vaguely familiar with, maps to "Larry Johnson," but him being given some sort of derogatory label by some crowd for some political kerfuffle, I understand. Sort of.

Who calls who what name is not something I track at all, though, not being four years old.

(This is not a snap at people with more awareness of such than I have; it's a snap at people who think calling names is worthwhile.)

"Gary, I'm not sure what LSL is, but from context I assumed Slart was talking about Larry Johnson."

Ok. Thanks. I couldn't figure out how "LSL" could map to "Larry Johnson," so was baffled.

Actually, I still don't have a clue how "Leisure Suit Larry," a series of computer games I'm vaguely familiar with, maps to "Larry Johnson," but him being given some sort of derogatory label by some crowd for some political kerfuffle, I understand. Sort of.

Who calls who what name is not something I track at all, though, not being four years old.

(This is not a snap at people with more awareness of such than I have; it's a snap at people who think calling names is worthwhile.)

Someone was apparently searching for Flickr photos of Obama and posting comments pointing to their blog about how Obama is the Antichrist. I got one, but it's disappeared now. The account must have been deleted for spamming. I couldn't decide whether the blog was serious or a spoof, but that's the way the world is nowadays.

apologize for the cryptic reference to the MyDD diary. Somehow I thought I'd mentioned in my previous comment that I'd originally found Larry Johnson's latest Obama smear through a diary he posted on MyDD (a place I'm not really sure why I still visit). When I saw the author was "Larr Johnson" I assumed at first that surely it wasn't that Larry Johnson, since he wasn't a wingnut.

Heh, you sound like me about 2 months ago. interestingly enough, it was on my regular rotation of blogs to check (along with TPM, TNR, Propsect, ObWings, pollster and Carpetbagger mainly), and then I went on vacation, and when I came back, I just stopped checking it. Not that I made a conscious choice at any given time; it was just forgotten, the habit broken, and since I no longer have any real urge to check there, if I'm not going via force of habit, I'm not going at all. I think I've gone over once or twice in 2008, mainly to see if hwc or jerome have committed suicide (which should, I think, be a real worry for hwc in particular of Hillary loses the nomination).

Interesting to note most important business each of them has under taken in USPS naming of facilities. Nothing really done on current national issues by either, so where is all this insight in how to move the nation forward?

Ben, could you point out a senator who has not sponsored legislation naming post offices? How much time do you think that takes up? Do you believe there are long drawn-out battles over these bills that distract the Senate from important national issue?

Also, have you read all of Hilzoy's posts on their legislation? In the later ones, she specifically excluded the sort of bills that have distracted you from commenting on anything substantive.

The only time wasted on naming post offices, etc is staff time (both the Senator's staff and the committee staff). In fact, all of the bills/admendments are done by the staffs with the Senator maybe showing up during the committee meeting if they felt it was going to be challenged.

I spent 2 years working at the Pentagon supporting Military construction projects. We'd get a list from the Military hierarchy what they needed built. By the time all of the Senators added the armorys to the list, we would be able to fund 1/3 of the projects that the military actually needed. Again, when the military contruction budget was being discussed, the Senator would pop in for 5 minutes, whisper to a few staffers to remind them why thier Senator had to support his armory, and then they'd be gone.

There is an email circulating that grossly misrepresents Hillary's legislative record, as well as the record of Sen. Obama. (Various versions appear on the Obama campaign website here, here, and here.)

The email only gives Hillary credit for bills where she was the original sponsor and have also been signed into law. Here are the facts. In her time in the Senate, Hillary has sponsored 21 bills that have become law including:

— a bill that extended the availability of unemployment assistance.

— a bill which established a program to assist family caregivers.

— a bill that provided benefits to public safety officers who were killed or injured during the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

But Hillary's accomplishments in the Senate are not limited to bill sponsorships. Among her many other legislative accomplishments:

— Hillary worked with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to expand access to health care for the National Guard and Reserve.

— Hillary passed an amendment that created a national program for teacher and principal training and recruitment.

— Hillary used Senate rules to force the Bush administration to make emergency contraception, also known as Plan B, available over the counter.

Meanwhile, the email gives Sen. Obama credit for every bill he introduced or signed on as a co-sponsor, whether or not they became law. The reality is, since Sen. Obama joined the Senate (applying the same standard the email applies to Hillary) he has sponsored two bills that have become law:

— a bill that sought to promote democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
— a bill that named a post office.

You have built a wonderful resource here - this information is essential for making informed decisions in the democratic process, and it's both remarkable and scandalous that these kinds of comprehensive, accurate, detailed lists aren't issued by the respective campaigns.

It seems roughly analogous to FDA requirements for nutritional information on processed foods: how can voters make an informed decision without basic information, such as, what did these Senators actually DO? What's inside the package?

Seems an awfully primitive form of democracy, lacking as it does in the public sphere such basic information as this. Pre-1906 in the food & drug analogy.

The citizenry is indebted to you, sir!

Just one constructive suggestion: in the textual flow (as it is now), I found it hard to pick out who is writing what. I found the separate dialogues hard to distinguish from each other. I'd suggest somehow making it clearer to readers who's saying what to whom, by the use of dividing lines or some other graphic device.

Thank you again for your valuable and important public service, and good luck with the work! I hope you can get a grant! (Have you tried GoogleGrants?)